San Diego Cnty. Health & Human Servs. Agency v. Shauna R. (In re Cody R.)

• Decision Date: 17 December 2018
• Docket Number: D074328,D073527
• Citation: 241 Cal.Rptr.3d 399,30 Cal.App.5th 381
• Parties: IN RE CODY R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Shauna R., Defendant and Appellant. In re Shauna R. on Habeas Corpus.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

30 Cal.App.5th 381

241 Cal.Rptr.3d 399

IN RE CODY R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. Shauna R., Defendant and Appellant.In re Shauna R. on Habeas Corpus.

D073527

D074328

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.

Filed December 17, 2018

As Modified January 7, 2019

Office Of The County Counsel, 5530 Overland Avenue, Suite 170, San Diego, CA 92123, for Plaintiff and Respondent

William D. Caldwell, 225 South Lake Avenue, Suite 300, Pasadena, CA 91101, for Defendant and Appellant

DATO, J.

Shauna R. appeals from an order terminating parental rights to her son, Cody R., under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.¹ She contends the order terminating parental rights must be reversed because the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) did not give preferential consideration to relatives when determining Cody's placement. After considering the parties' supplemental briefing on the issue of standing, we conclude that Shauna does not have standing to appeal the order terminating parental rights on the ground the Agency did not give preferential placement consideration to Cody's relatives. We therefore dismiss the appeal.

Shauna has also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus asking this court to vacate the dispositional findings and orders and the order terminating parental rights. In an affidavit, Shauna asserts that prior to the June 2017 dispositional hearing she identified several family members who wanted Cody to live with them but the social worker told her that Cody would not, and could not, be moved from his foster home. Shauna argues that in placing Cody in a concurrent planning home instead of with a relative, the social worker misstated and misapplied the law governing the relative placement preference.

After receiving an informal response from the Agency, we issued an order to show cause. The parties have filed a return and a traverse, which we have now considered along with briefing and a review of the exhibits. We conclude that a petition for writ of habeas corpus may be filed in dependency cases only in limited circumstances not present here. We therefore deny the petition.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Cody R., who is now five years old, is a son of Shauna R. and C.R. (together, parents). In August 2013, the Agency detained six-week-old Cody and four of his older siblings in protective custody due to severe neglect. The parents were convicted on related criminal charges of willful cruelty to a child. Shauna and C.R. regained custody of the children in January and February 2015. The juvenile court terminated jurisdiction in September 2015.

Shortly before Christmas 2016, the children's former court-appointed special advocate (CASA) visited the family, which by then included another son and an infant daughter. The CASA observed that three-year-old Cody, who had been a "chunky" baby, was severely underweight, weak and lethargic. His extremities were purple. The CASA, a former paramedic, said Cody appeared to be near death and advised the parents to take him to the emergency room.

Cody was barely responsive when he arrived at the hospital several hours later. He was significantly malnourished. At three-and-a-half, Cody weighed 21.6 pounds, which was less than he had weighed at his last doctor appointment shortly after his second birthday. Bruises and abrasions on Cody's face, back, and legs were concerning for nonaccidental trauma.

During his hospitalization, Cody gained almost five pounds in less than five days. There was no other cause of failure to thrive other than malnutrition and neglect. Cody was severely neurologically delayed due to psychosocial and nutritional deprivation. Physicians characterized the parents' treatment of Cody as "essentially starvation" and advised the social worker that Cody would be at risk of death if returned home.

In foster care, Cody displayed extreme food seeking behaviors, which was "textbook behavior" for children who had been food deprived. Cody was provided services including Failure to Thrive Clinic, Speech Therapy, Physical Therapy, Trauma Therapy, and developmental support services.

The Agency detained Cody's siblings in protective custody in March 2017, when Shauna and C.R. were arrested on charges of felony child cruelty and held without bail.² Cody's baby sister was placed with him in foster care. The older siblings were very guarded when first removed from their parents. They later disclosed the parents said the entire family would go to jail if they talked about what had happened in the home.

The eldest sibling, C.R., Jr., said the parents did not feed Cody and would make him watch while the others ate. The parents locked the kitchen cabinets to prevent Cody from eating at night. C.R., Jr. explained that he and his siblings left food on the ground for Cody but the mice would eat it. Cody was so hungry he ate his feces from his diaper. He was not allowed to play with toys. He was not allowed out of the bedroom and had to stay in bed all day. C.R., Jr. said the parents made him stay home with Cody to avoid having Cody be seen in public. The three oldest children reported that the parents hit all the children, leaving marks and bruises, and encouraged them to hit each other and Cody.

On June 2, 2017, at the contested jurisdictional and disposition hearing, the juvenile court found that Cody was a child described by section 300, subdivisions (b) [neglect] and (e) [severe physical abuse of a child under five years of age]. None of the parties raised the issue of Cody's placement with a relative. The court removed Cody from the care and custody of his parents, bypassed reunification services, and set a section 366.26 hearing. The court advised the parents of their right to appeal but failed to inform them that proper review of an order setting a section 366.26 hearing was by way of writ under California Rules of Court, rule 8.452.³

Shauna nevertheless signed a notice of intent to file a writ petition on June 2, which was filed on June 7. After review, however, her attorney notified Shauna and this court that a writ petition under rule 8.452 would not be filed because there were no viable issues for review. This court dismissed the matter on July 10, 2017.

Cody's Placement History and Search for Relatives Interested in Placement

Cody was hospitalized from December 24 to 29, 2016. At a team decision meeting in January 2017, Shauna and C.R. said there were no relatives available to care for Cody. The parents agreed to place him with a nonrelative extended family member (NREFM) under a voluntary safety plan and asked the Agency to consider placing Cody with their employers and friends, the B.'s. The Agency began an evaluation of the B.'s home, but the B.'s withdrew their names from consideration for placement prior to the dispositional hearing.

The Agency filed a section 300 petition on January 20 and detained him with another NREFM. On January 27, the social worker placed Cody in a concurrent family home with his current caregivers, who had an approved adoption home study.

During Cody's hospitalization, Aunt B., who was married to Shauna's brother (Uncle N.), visited Cody while a social worker was present. Aunt B. was reluctant to get involved in Cody's case. She told the social worker she did not understand how the parents could have ignored Cody's condition. At a court hearing, Shauna confronted Aunt B. and demanded she retract her statement. When Aunt B. refused, Shauna said, "[Aunt B. is] never to see Cody again."

On February 2, the social worker sent letters to nine relatives, including Uncle D. and Uncle N., asking if they were interested in caring for Cody. The letter advised the relatives that if they did not come forward prior to the dispositional hearing, "the opportunities for placement in relative care may diminish as the child's case progresses."

In March, the social worker contacted Shauna to review the Agency's dispositional recommendations to bypass services and set a section 366.26 hearing. Shauna did not want to meet with the social worker and did not provide any concurrent placement recommendations for Cody.

On May 5, the social worker met with Cody's maternal grandmother and grandfather, Aunt B., and Aunt V., who were concerned about the children's welfare. The family advised against ever returning the children to Shauna's care. The grandmother said Shauna's behavioral issues dated back to early childhood. Shauna had been diagnosed with borderline personality disorder with narcissism and rage. The family was afraid of her and had distanced themselves from her. Shauna had a history of filing false accusations of abuse against family members. The day after Uncle D. and his girlfriend met with the social worker, child welfare services received a report alleging they did not have electricity in the home, which was not true.

After the case was referred to a section 366.26 hearing, a new social worker was assigned to the case. In August, in response to Shauna's inquiry why the case was in adoptions while there was an appeal pending, the social worker said Shauna's writ petition had been dismissed on July 10 and advised her to contact her attorney. The social worker explained that the Agency had the authority to make placement decisions on Cody's behalf. They had tried to identify relatives and NREFMs for placement but did not find anyone willing to provide long-term care for Cody.

In response to Shauna's further telephone calls and letters, the social worker sent another email, stating in relevant part: "Cody is a dependent of the Court and because of that you no longer have a say in where your son is placed. The Agency many times asks parents for ideas of family members or family friends.... This does not mean the parents are making the decision of where your [sic] child is placed but rather giving ideas of individuals that can be assessed...